法定解释的过程失效理论

M. Seidenfeld
{"title":"法定解释的过程失效理论","authors":"M. Seidenfeld","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2339698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article lays out a legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation. It first defends an intent-based approach to interpretation by arguing that Congress, in the process of drafting statutes, does not use the same mechanisms for determining meaning as do courts when they interpret them. Therefore, courts and legislatures comprise different linguistic interpretive communities. The article proceeds to define legislative process failure to occur when the mechanism of each community leads to different understandings of statutory text. The paramount question then becomes: what is the best response of the legal system to such failure? Legislative supremacy requires that the courts and Congress come to some accommodation to ensure that courts will interpret statutes in accord with the legislature’s understanding. That assumption, however, is satisfied so long as Congress knows how courts will interpret statutes and can adjust its process to ensure that the statutes it enacts will be interpreted as it intends. Legislative process failure theory therefore leads to the subsequent question: which branch should accommodate the other’s method of attaching meaning to statutes, and under what circumstances? I conclude that, generally, legislatures cannot engage in judicial type inquiries into statutory meaning while drafting statutes because the cost of engaging such statutory analysis ex-ante – before identification of the potential provisions that might exhibit process failure – is prohibitive. But, once the legislature becomes aware of a process failure, the costs of engaging in judicial type textual inquiry become manageable, and the error costs of interpretation due to strategic manipulation of legislative meaning greatly increase. Hence, in the face of such awareness, usually a textual approach is justified. Finally, having developed the legislative process failure of interpretation, the article considers several types of failures for which courts should accommodate the legislative approach to attaching meaning to statutes.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"56 1","pages":"467"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2339698","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Process Failure Theory of Statutory Interpretation\",\"authors\":\"M. Seidenfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2339698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article lays out a legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation. It first defends an intent-based approach to interpretation by arguing that Congress, in the process of drafting statutes, does not use the same mechanisms for determining meaning as do courts when they interpret them. Therefore, courts and legislatures comprise different linguistic interpretive communities. The article proceeds to define legislative process failure to occur when the mechanism of each community leads to different understandings of statutory text. The paramount question then becomes: what is the best response of the legal system to such failure? Legislative supremacy requires that the courts and Congress come to some accommodation to ensure that courts will interpret statutes in accord with the legislature’s understanding. That assumption, however, is satisfied so long as Congress knows how courts will interpret statutes and can adjust its process to ensure that the statutes it enacts will be interpreted as it intends. Legislative process failure theory therefore leads to the subsequent question: which branch should accommodate the other’s method of attaching meaning to statutes, and under what circumstances? I conclude that, generally, legislatures cannot engage in judicial type inquiries into statutory meaning while drafting statutes because the cost of engaging such statutory analysis ex-ante – before identification of the potential provisions that might exhibit process failure – is prohibitive. But, once the legislature becomes aware of a process failure, the costs of engaging in judicial type textual inquiry become manageable, and the error costs of interpretation due to strategic manipulation of legislative meaning greatly increase. Hence, in the face of such awareness, usually a textual approach is justified. Finally, having developed the legislative process failure of interpretation, the article considers several types of failures for which courts should accommodate the legislative approach to attaching meaning to statutes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"467\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2339698\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2339698\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2339698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文提出了法律解释的立法程序失效理论。它首先为基于意图的解释方法辩护,认为国会在起草法规的过程中,没有使用与法院在解释法规时相同的机制来确定其含义。因此,法院和立法机构组成了不同的语言解释群体。接着界定了各共同体的机制导致对法定文本的不同理解时所发生的立法程序失灵。那么最重要的问题就变成了:法律体系对这种失败的最佳回应是什么?立法至上要求法院和国会达成某种和解,以确保法院按照立法机关的理解来解释成文法。然而,只要国会知道法院将如何解释成文法,并能够调整其程序,以确保它颁布的成文法将按照它的意图得到解释,这种假设就可以满足。因此,立法程序失败理论导致了随后的问题:哪个部门应该适应另一个部门赋予法规意义的方法,以及在什么情况下?我的结论是,一般来说,立法机关在起草法规时不能对法律意义进行司法式的调查,因为在确定可能显示程序失败的潜在条款之前进行这种事前法律分析的费用是令人望而却步的。但是,一旦立法机关意识到程序失败,从事司法式文本查询的成本就变得可控,而由于立法意义的战略性操纵而导致的解释错误成本就会大大增加。因此,面对这种意识,通常文本方法是合理的。最后,在阐述了解释的立法程序失败之后,本文考虑了法院应采用立法方法赋予成文法意义的几种类型的失败。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Process Failure Theory of Statutory Interpretation
This article lays out a legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation. It first defends an intent-based approach to interpretation by arguing that Congress, in the process of drafting statutes, does not use the same mechanisms for determining meaning as do courts when they interpret them. Therefore, courts and legislatures comprise different linguistic interpretive communities. The article proceeds to define legislative process failure to occur when the mechanism of each community leads to different understandings of statutory text. The paramount question then becomes: what is the best response of the legal system to such failure? Legislative supremacy requires that the courts and Congress come to some accommodation to ensure that courts will interpret statutes in accord with the legislature’s understanding. That assumption, however, is satisfied so long as Congress knows how courts will interpret statutes and can adjust its process to ensure that the statutes it enacts will be interpreted as it intends. Legislative process failure theory therefore leads to the subsequent question: which branch should accommodate the other’s method of attaching meaning to statutes, and under what circumstances? I conclude that, generally, legislatures cannot engage in judicial type inquiries into statutory meaning while drafting statutes because the cost of engaging such statutory analysis ex-ante – before identification of the potential provisions that might exhibit process failure – is prohibitive. But, once the legislature becomes aware of a process failure, the costs of engaging in judicial type textual inquiry become manageable, and the error costs of interpretation due to strategic manipulation of legislative meaning greatly increase. Hence, in the face of such awareness, usually a textual approach is justified. Finally, having developed the legislative process failure of interpretation, the article considers several types of failures for which courts should accommodate the legislative approach to attaching meaning to statutes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信